If....................

[Wyatt]

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

 

[FormerReformer]

It would definitely be iffy.  It'd be like a smoker and non-smoker getting married- yeah, you go outside for a smoke even in the freezing cold and she still complains.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

I think the better question is this: Why would they want to be in communion with anyone that rejected what they considered to be dogmatic truths? Dogmas are life-giving, and to deny them is cancerous. So this would be equivalent to letting cancer into your body.

Also, note that you spoke in terms of Rome "not requiring" us to do such and such. This is still a fundamental orientation of domination and arbitration.

We would be embracing filioque ipso facto just by being in communion with those that use it.

Nothing about your proposal makes any sense.

 

[Shlomlokh]

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

I think the better question is this: Why would they want to be in communion with anyone that rejected what they considered to be dogmatic truths? Dogmas are life-giving, and to deny them is cancerous. So this would be equivalent to letting cancer into your body.

Also, note that you spoke in terms of Rome "not requiring" us to do such and such. This is still a fundamental orientation of domination and arbitration.

We would be embracing filioque ipso facto just by being in communion with those that use it.

Nothing about your proposal makes any sense.

^The EXACT problem with the Unia.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Kasatkin fan]

If those issues had never been forced on the East in the first place, it is likely Communion would not have ended, however Communion can't be re-established magically. The Latin Church features many areas of concern, not to mention the question of what happens to the present Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[Apples]

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

Probably not, as being in communion with a jurisdiction that believes such things gives them some degree of validity. It's a statement that those doctrines are acceptable expressions of Christian theology - which they are not.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

:angel:

 

[scamandrius]

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No.  Too many other questions would persist.  And your phrasing betrays still a hint of papal authority in that the pope wouldn't require the Orthodox to be x or y.  Such still assumes that he has the power on which to establish the communion.

Besides true communion is not  living by each other and merely "agreeing to disagree." Such is what you are proposing.  That is not communion...it is simply tolerating differences. That's the communion arrangements that the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians and UCC have in this country together.  Those denominations are not one in the same in faith and especially not in praxis.  Is that what you are looking for in communion with the RC and the EO?  I hope not.

Also, we need to change our vocabulary when approaching this topic.  We should not be talking about uniting the churches.  We should be talking about uniting the various "confessions" to THE CHURCH.

 

[trevor72694]

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

:angel:

exactly. 

 

[Alcuin]

I don't think those questions can be simply 'not required' of someone.

If the Pope has the authority to define dogma, and it is the ratification of the Pope that confirms a council as ecumenical, how can one be in communion with Rome while rejecting these notions? There might be differences of practice in how the Pope deals with one particular Church versus other particular Churches, but every Church would have to accept that in principle these things are true.

Also as regards the Filioque: As it currently stands the Church does not require it to be said in every Church, but every Church must assent to its theological validity. I don't know how there could be much of a longstanding or real communion if there was dissent over an issue of such importance as the very nature of God.

 

[Shanghaiski]

The Holy Fathers do not permit us to enter into communion with heretics.

 

[Iconodule]

So the Pope is universal pastor when you're in Rome but not in Moscow? Give me a break.

 

[deusveritasest]

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No. You would be required to abandon the primacy of Rome and the co-participation of the Son in the causation of the Spirit.

 

[deusveritasest]

Besides true communion is not  living by each other and merely "agreeing to disagree." Such is what you are proposing.  That is not communion...it is simply tolerating differences. That's the communion arrangements that the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians and UCC have in this country together.  Those denominations are not one in the same in faith and especially not in praxis.  Is that what you are looking for in communion with the RC and the EO?  I hope not.

Such ecumenist heresy is certainly present even in the "Apostolic" churches, and I have seen it advanced vigorously many times by modern day Romanists.

 

[J Michael]

Oh boy, oh boy......here we go again  ;D!

 

[Papist]

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

:angel:

We are the Orthodox Church.

 

[Papist]

Besides true communion is not  living by each other and merely "agreeing to disagree." Such is what you are proposing.  That is not communion...it is simply tolerating differences. That's the communion arrangements that the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians and UCC have in this country together.  Those denominations are not one in the same in faith and especially not in praxis.  Is that what you are looking for in communion with the RC and the EO?  I hope not.

Such ecumenist heresy is certainly present even in the "Apostolic" churches, and I have seen it advanced vigorously many times by modern day Romanists.

By who?

 

[Papist]

The Holy Fathers do not permit us to enter into communion with heretics.

Then you should return to the Catholic church.  ;D

 

[Wyatt]

We are the Orthodox Church.

Oh snap!

Then you should return to the Catholic church.  ;D

PWNED

_______________________________________

In all seriousness, my question in the opening post was more hypothetical than anything else. Obviously, as a Catholic, I don't think that any of our dogmas need to be done away with. Interestingly, it seems that the type of unity outlined in the OP already exists amongst us and the Eastern Catholic Churches. I am not saying that all of them reject our dogmas (because I'm sure some don't) but it is quite stunning (and scandalous) to me that they seem to be able to do so and remain in communion with us. I tend to take the same stance as others in this thread, albeit from the opposite side of the fence, that true communion requires agreement and uniformity in faith. Either our doctrines and dogmas are true or they are not. Either we are the Church or we are not.

 

[elijahmaria]

We are the Orthodox Church.

Oh snap!

Then you should return to the Catholic church.  ;D

PWNED

_______________________________________

In all seriousness, my question in the opening post was more hypothetical than anything else. Obviously, as a Catholic, I don't think that any of our dogmas need to be done away with. Interestingly, it seems that the type of unity outlined in the OP already exists amongst us and the Eastern Catholic Churches. I am not saying that all of them reject our dogmas (because I'm sure some don't) but it is quite stunning (and scandalous) to me that they seem to be able to do so and remain in communion with us. I tend to take the same stance as others in this thread, albeit from the opposite side of the fence, that true communion requires agreement and uniformity in faith. Either our doctrines and dogmas are true or they are not. Either we are the Church or we are not.

I disagree with all of you to this extent, for example:

It seems to me, using the Immaculate Conception as an example, that it would be quite possible for us to disagree over whether the Mother of God was immaculate in the womb or at the moment of conception.

There were these kinds of disagreements over more important core doctrines and we did not tear one another apart or schism:  one might rightly except the treatment of the Oriental Orthodox but even now the EO will embrace the OO and kick sand in the face of the papal Church.

So it is not at all clear that we should not be in communion and work out our differences from there, or live with them.

 

[Wyatt]

It seems to me, using the Immaculate Conception as an example, that it would be quite possible for us to disagree over whether the Mother of God was immaculate in the womb or at the moment of conception.

That might be true if the Immaculate Conception was a theological opinion such as limbo of the infants, but it is not. It is dogma.

 

[elijahmaria]

It seems to me, using the Immaculate Conception as an example, that it would be quite possible for us to disagree over whether the Mother of God was immaculate in the womb or at the moment of conception.

That might be true if the Immaculate Conception was a theological opinion such as limbo of the infants, but it is not. It is dogma.

It is dogma as defined by the west.  Even in the east there has been an openness to it in fact and there is nothing in the liturgy of the eastern Church that argues against it.  And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.

You seem to miss the point that the unified Church was hardly unified in all points of doctrine or doctrinal expression.

 

[Wyatt]

It is dogma as defined by the west.

Truth isn't regional. Either something is true or it isn't. Something can't just be true in the west.

Even in the east there has been an openness to it in fact and there is nothing in the liturgy of the eastern Church that argues against it.

That much is good at least.

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.

It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

You seem to miss the point that the unified Church was hardly unified in all points of doctrine or doctrinal expression.

Though I am sure the first millennium Church was more unified doctrinally than Catholicism and Orthodoxy currently is.

 

[elijahmaria]

Though I am sure the first millennium Church was more unified doctrinally than Catholicism and Orthodoxy currently is.

Frankly I think your certitude in this matter is more than a little delusional...or illusional depending on how deeply you've read in the Holy Fathers and Church History.

Also there is the clear statement of the Holy Father that there is no need to ask of the Orthodox more than that which was sufficient for the first thousand years.

Without a shadow of a doubt I believe that the ultimate grounds for resumption of Communion is going to be a shock to legalists on both sides.

 

[Wyatt]

Though I am sure the first millennium Church was more unified doctrinally than Catholicism and Orthodoxy currently is.

Frankly I think your certitude in this matter is more than a little delusional...or illusional depending on how deeply you've read in the Holy Fathers and Church History.

Also there is the clear statement of the Holy Father that there is no need to ask of the Orthodox more than that which was sufficient for the first thousand years.

Without a shadow of a doubt I believe that the ultimate grounds for resumption of Communion is going to be a shock to legalists on both sides.

Well obviously something changed between then and now because they were in communion with us then and are in schism now. I don't consider it legalistic to believe that the truth cannot be compromised in the name of unity. Unity has to come through mutual recognizing and professing the truth through the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alcuin]

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

Wyatt - doctrine didn't really change (Papal Infallibility only having been explicitly defined at Vatican I, centuries after the schism). The issue that begat the infamous double-excommunication of 1054 was Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople complaining over the west's use of unleavened bread in the liturgy and writing a letter about that to the west in which he took the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and referred to the Pope as "brother" rather than the customary "Father". Obviously these were smoke-screens for the real issue, which was mutual cultural and doctrinal antipathy between Greeks and Latins (the Photian schism had ended without any real resolution of the Filioque issue).

 

[elijahmaria]

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

 

[Alcuin]

I really can't agree with you that it's an issue of legalism at all. It speaks to fundamental differences in how east and west understand the core nature of sin and man.

 

[elijahmaria]

I really can't agree with you that it's an issue of legalism at all. It speaks to fundamental differences in how east and west understand the core nature of sin and man.

If you read the saints and doctors and pray through the liturgies, you'd find that those differences are not at all Life threatening.  If they were the head of the CDF would never have said what he said about the OO and EO Churches...sorry about the acronyms but I am rushing to go out.

 

[Wyatt]

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

I don't subscribe to branch theory.

 

[ialmisry]

Christus resurrexit!

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No, as you would not be in communion with us (I take that your scenario would allow you to retain your heresies).

 

[Wyatt]

Christus resurrexit!

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No, as you would not be in communion with us (I take that your scenario would allow you to retain your heresies).

While I don't agree with your use of the 'h' word, I get where you are coming from. Yes, in my above hypothetical scenario, we would stay the same doctrinally and you all would stay the same doctrinally as well.

 

[Benjamin the Red]

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.

It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly, Wyatt. That's why the EO reject the Unia, it's not truly union. Either the Eastern Rite becomes Roman Catholic in every way except rite, or it remains Orthodox in everyway, but in communion with Rome. Neither of these are real union. It is either submission to Rome or false union.

For the Orthodox to commune again with the Roman church, in my own opinion, Rome would have to undogmatize those things which divide us (IC, papal infallibility/supremacy, etc.) and resume its status as an equal autocelphalous church, with the Bishop of Rome being a their primate, and a bishop among equal bishops, without intervention in other churches (unless Rome was granted its pre-schism privilages of appeal, allowing the Pope of Rome to intervene only when receiving an appeal).

Anything less, I think, is false union.

 

[elijahmaria]

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.

It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly, Wyatt. That's why the EO reject the Unia, it's not truly union. Either the Eastern Rite becomes Roman Catholic in every way except rite, or it remains Orthodox in everyway, but in communion with Rome. Neither of these are real union. It is either submission to Rome or false union.

For the Orthodox to commune again with the Roman church, in my own opinion, Rome would have to undogmatize those things which divide us (IC, papal infallibility/supremacy, etc.) and resume its status as an equal autocelphalous church, with the Bishop of Rome being a their primate, and a bishop among equal bishops, without intervention in other churches (unless Rome was granted its pre-schism privilages of appeal, allowing the Pope of Rome to intervene only when receiving an appeal).

Anything less, I think, is false union.

You would think that the Orthodox hierarchs engaging in the bilateral discussions would say that if that is what they meant or thought.  The fact that we do not hear these kinds of things from the majority of Orthodox hierarchs tells me that you too will be disappointed.

 

[orthonorm]

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

:angel:

exactly.   

Trevor, GIFs are not allowed to prostrate between Pascha and Pentecost.

 

[ialmisry]

Christus resurrexit!

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.

It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly, Wyatt. That's why the EO reject the Unia, it's not truly union. Either the Eastern Rite becomes Roman Catholic in every way except rite, or it remains Orthodox in everyway, but in communion with Rome. Neither of these are real union. It is either submission to Rome or false union.

For the Orthodox to commune again with the Roman church, in my own opinion, Rome would have to undogmatize those things which divide us (IC, papal infallibility/supremacy, etc.) and resume its status as an equal autocelphalous church, with the Bishop of Rome being a their primate, and a bishop among equal bishops, without intervention in other churches (unless Rome was granted its pre-schism privilages of appeal, allowing the Pope of Rome to intervene only when receiving an appeal).

Anything less, I think, is false union.

You would think that the Orthodox hierarchs engaging in the bilateral discussions would say that if that is what they meant or thought.  The fact that we do not hear these kinds of things from the majority of Orthodox hierarchs tells me that you too will be disappointed.

yes, that the Vatican and its followers will not return to Catholic unity is a disappointment.

I do believe Fr. Ambrose has posted links many times, on how the bishops engaged in the bilateral discussion, for long on a long leash, have had that leash pulled, or rather yanked, in as of late.  What the Holy Synod of Romania, the second largest EO Church, said to and about Arb. Nicolae Corneanu represents what the majority of Orthodox hiearchs have to say on the matter.

 

[Kasatkin fan]

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

:angel:

We are the Orthodox Church.

Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.

 

[PJ]

Christus resurrexit!

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No, as you would not be in communion with us (I take that your scenario would allow you to retain your heresies).

While I don't agree with your use of the 'h' word, I get where you are coming from. Yes, in my above hypothetical scenario, we would stay the same doctrinally and you all would stay the same doctrinally as well.

Wyatt, could you clarify the original question? When you say, "If the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept" etc., do you mean that we would no longer consider them to be dogmas?

 

[bogdan]

I think the Antiochian service book puts it nicely:

"We understand 'communion' to mean we hold all things in common."

Until such a time comes that we can say that, there will be no communion. Agreeing to disagree is not grounds for communion.

 

[Alcuin]

We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

The Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility, in defining a dogma, refers to it as a proposition of faith or morals "to be believed by the whole Church" and which is "irreformable". I think that's a pretty good definition of what dogma is.